Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 21941 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Reserved 
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53934
 
Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 94 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Thru. Pradhan And Anrin Miss 4515/2020
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Inst. Finance And Ors.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Maria Fatima,Santosh Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 

1. This instant review-petition has been preferred by Sri Devendra Pal Verma, the petitioner no. 2 of Writ Petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 which was decided along with Writ Petitions No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 by means of a common judgment and order dated 07th June, 2021.

2. To put the controversy in a perspective, it will be necessary to recapitulate the factual background in which W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 came to be filed.

3. Sri Devendra Pal Verma claiming himself to be the elected President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 had raised certain issues regarding his expulsion from the Society in W.P. No. 10563 (MS) 2017 wherein primarily the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow was assailed as by the said order the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow held Sri Devendra Pal Verma not to be the President of the society and the Deputy Registrar had also handed over the charge of the President to Sri Dheeraj Singh (who was the petitioner in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020) which was decided along with W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 by means of the common judgment dated 07th June, 2021.

4. It would be worthwhile to notice that in the first round of litigation, three petitions bearing No. 10563 (MS) of 2017, W.P. No. 7613 (MS) of 2017 and W.P. No. 1829 (MS) of 2017 came to be decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of an order dated 30.07.2019 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-

"4. So far as impugned orders dated 09.11.2016, 16.01.2017 and 30.03.2017 are concerned, counsels for both the parties agree that the aforesaid order may be set aside. However, the issue as to whether Sri Devendra Pal Verma is entitled to hold any post in the society or not be left to be decided after decision of the Deputy Registrar with regard to membership.

5. In view of aforesaid, following order is being passed:-

i) The impugned orders dated 09.11.2016, 16.01.2017 and 30.03.2017 are set aside.

(ii) All the parties may approach the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow within a period of two week from today raising all their submissions including with regard to membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma and Smt. Gayatri Dixit. The said members shall be decided by the Deputy Registrar by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

(iii) It is provided that authority of Sri Devendra Pal Verma to hold any post including the post of president in the society will depend upon the final order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow with regard to membership.

(iv) Till final decision of the Deputy Registrar, parties shall maintain status-quo."

5. From the perusal of the aforesaid directions given in the order dated 30.07.2019, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow was directed to decide the issue including the membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma (the present review-petitioner). It also provided that the authority of Sri Devendra Pal Verma to hold any post including the post of President of the Society will depend upon the final orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and till the final decision of the Deputy Registrar, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo.

6. In furtherance of the aforesaid directions, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow by means of order dated 02.11.2019 rejected the representation of the review-petitioner and passed a consequential order dated 07.11.2019 and these two orders came to be challenged in the W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020.

7. Whereas Sri Dheeraj Singh who had filed W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 had assailed the validity of the proceedings of an alleged meeting said to have been held on 16.02.2020 wherein an alleged no confidence motion was said to have been initiated at the behest of the respondent no. 4 of the said writ petition which was allegedly successfully passed and in furtherance thereof the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow by means of order dated 19.03.2020 had approved the same including a registered fresh list of members which was submitted by the respondent no. 4 of the said writ petition.

8. In light of the aforesaid contentious issues involved in the two writ petitions, this Court by means of judgment dated 07th June, 2021 in so far as writ petition No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 is concerned allowed the writ petition quashing the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and remitted the matter to the Deputy Registrar with a direction that he shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned shall re-consider the matter in light of the observations made by the Court in the judgment, on the basis of the material on record submitted and in light of the submissions made by the parties. It was also categorically provided that any observations made in the judgment shall not be taken to be an expression on merits and the Deputy Registrar was required to decide the same expeditiously by a reasoned and a speaking order on merits within a period of four months from the date, a certified copy of the order is placed before the Authority concerned.

9. In so far as the Writ Petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 is concerned, this Court came to the conclusion that the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow could not be faulted and the writ petition was dismissed.

10. It has also been submitted that a Special Appeal came to be filed against the order dated 07th June, 2021 in so far as it allowed the writ petition No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 and the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 217 of 2021 disposed of the same with a direction to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow to pass a fresh order in accordance with law by giving reasons and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. He was directed not to be influenced in any manner by any observations made by this Court in the writ petition No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 and the period of four months to decide was to reckon from the date of the order passed by a Division Bench in Special Appeal dated 01.07.2021. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 217 of 2021 reads as under:-

"in this view of the matter, with the consent of parties' counsel, this special appeal is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the Deputy Registrar to pass a fresh order in accordance with law by giving reasons and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. He shall not be influenced in any manner by any observation made by learned Single Judge or by this Court. The Deputy Registrar shall make any endevour to pass a fresh order within a period of four months from today. The Deputy Registrar shall consider all the issues are may be placed before him or are relevant to decide the controversy in question. The parties are at liberty to raise all the issues relating to the controversy raised in the writ petition before the Deputy Registrar."

11. It has been submitted that in so far as the decision relating to W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 is concerned, the petitioners have filed this review-petition and the following contentions have been raised by Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel along with Sri Atul Dwivedi, for the review-petitioner.

(i) It has been urged that this Court while dealing with W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 ignored a vital aspect of the matter that once the order dated 09.11.2016 had been set aside by means of order dated 30.07.2019 and the entire matter was left open to be decided by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and this aspect was considered by this Court while dealing with W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 and left open all issues to be considered by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and on the other hand, this Court dismissed the writ petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 which has resulted in an incongruous result, thus, the need for review;

(ii) The learned counsel for the review-petitioner have further submitted that the issue regarding the membership of Devendra Pal Verma was not appropriately considered by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and in light of certain subsequent events which were brought to the notice of this Court by filing a rejoinder affidavit yet was misconstrued by the Court, as a result, the writ petition was dismissed whereas the crux of the controversy which had been raised was never adjudicated upon, accordingly, it appears that the writ petition was not heard appropriately and requires to be re-considered, hence, the need for review.

(iii) It has further been urged that unless and until the impact of the order dated 09.11.2016 is considered and its consequential effects are appropriately noticed, it will always lead to an ambiguity and even though this Court in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 left open all issues but foreclosed the rights of Devendra Pal Verma who had assailed the order dated 02.11.2019 and 07.11.2019 in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 and which were an outcome of the order dated 09.11.2016, hence, it would have been appropriate if the writ petition of Devendra Pal Verma would also have been disposed of leaving all issues to be considered and the dismissal of the writ petition has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice as the rights of Sri Devendra Pal Verma regarding his membership has been severely affected and once a finding has been given by this Court in its judgment dated 07th June, 2021 dismissing W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 then even, if at all, Sri Devendra Pal Verma was to participate in the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, it would be of no meaning and would be merely a futile exercise.

(iv) It has also been urged that it was brought to the notice of the Court that fresh elections had taken place and in pursuance whereof Sri Devendra Pal Verma had been elected but from the perusal of the judgment, it would indicate that the Court has not considered this fact appropriately as it has been stated in the judgment that even though the rejoinder affidavit was filed as late as on 18.03.2021 and no supporting documents were filed regarding the alleged elections but the Court failed to notice that no such documents could have been filed on 18.03.2021 since the election actually took place on 21st March, 2021 which was subsequent to filing of the rejoinder affidavit and this is an error apparent on the record and it has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.

12. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, it has been submitted that the judgment dated 07th June, 2021 deserves to be reviewed appropriately by this Court.

13. It will be relevant to notice that the original contesting respondent of the writ petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 namely Sri Dheeraj Singh expired during the pendency of the review-application and upon an oral request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the review-petitioner, they were permitted to make an appropriate endorsement after the name and full particulars of the deceased respondent no. 3.

14. Per Contra, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 in the review petition has urged that the order dated 07.06.2021 is a well reasoned order which requires no re-consideration or review. It has been urged that the learned counsel for the review-petitioners are actually seeking a re-hearing of the writ petition on merits since in a review petition, it is only an error apparent on the face of record which can be seen and any error which requires a long drawn process of reasoning cannot be termed as an error apparent and for the said reason, the review-petition on this score alone deserves to be dismissed.

15. Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents taking his submissions forward has also pointed out that entire premise upon which the learned counsel for the review-petitioners have based their arguments is fallacious. The review-petitioners have projected that the genesis of the problem lies in the order dated 09.11.2016 and since apparently the said order as per the review-petitioners is patently erroneous, being de-hors the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, consequently, all such actions in pursuance thereof fail including the removal of Sri Devendra Pal Verma from the post of President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha including the removal as alleged to have taken place in a meeting said to have been held on 25.03.2017 and 26.03.2017 as it would be without jurisdiction.

16. It is submitted that the aforesaid argument is far fetched for the reason that apparently this Court by means of order dated 30.07.2019 had set aside the order dated 09.11.2016. Once the said order had been set aside by a coordinate Bench of this Court and certain directions were issued which required the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow to consider and decide the issue including the membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma as well as his authority to hold any post including the post of President in the society would depend upon the final orders to be passed by the Deputy Registrar. Thus, it is urged that the issue before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow was to consider the membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma and it is not his case that he was not given an ample opportunity to contest or to place his submissions before the Deputy Registrar,

17. Sri Mehrortra, learned counsel further urges that before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, the hearing had commenced on 28.08.2019 and went on till 15.10.2019 and during this period various dates were fixed and number of pleadings were exchanged. Considering all the material before it, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow categorically held that Sri Devendra Pal Verma could not establish his bonfaide membership and also could not dispute the fact that he had already been removed from the Arya Samaj of District Muzaffarnagar on 24.07.2019 and in view thereof he could not hold any post in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, accordingly, the findings recorded by this Court cannot be said to be erroneous or that it suffers from any manifest error which may require a review.

18. It has also been urged that the fact regarding the alleged elections was merely stated in the rejoinder affidavit in a casual manner but there was no material brought on record to substantiate the same. This has been adequately noticed by this Court and it cannot be said that there is any error on this count.

19. Lastly, it has been urged that since the entire issue has been left open and the very fact which has also been noticed by this Court in its judgment dated 07.06.2021 that as alleged by the review-petitioner that his primary membership has been restored and the same has also been approved by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, this aspect has been dealt with and the Court has left it open for the Authority to consider its consequences, therefore, the rights of the review-petitioner are adequately safeguarded, hence, all the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the review-petitioner are nothing but an attempt to get a re-hearing on merits which is not permissible nor desirable, consequently, the review-petition must fail.

20. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and given a thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions and also perused the material on record including the records of the W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020.

21. In a nutshell, what can be culled out from the submissions of the learned counsel for the review-petition is that by means of order dated 09.11.2016, Sri Devendra Pal Verma who was by then an elected President his powers were seized and in his place, the powers were handed over to Sri Dheeraj Singh who was the senior most Vice President. It is urged that this initial exercise of power by the Deputy Registrar is completely alien to the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and this was the core order which was earlier challenged in W.P. No. 10563 (MS) of 2017. The contention put forward is that once this order dated 09.11.2016 is found to be de-hors, the provisions of the Act and the handing over of the powers of President to Sri Dheeraj Singh also being violative and in excess of jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, thus, the alleged meeting which took place on 25.03.2017 and 26.03.2017 while Sri Dheeraj Singh was exercising powers conferred illegally by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, such meeting would also be futile and the alleged resolution expelling the review-petitioner from the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha also falls and thus all other aspects pale into insignificance.

22. It is in this juxtaposition of facts, once Devendra Pal Verma was re-elected in the alleged elections held on 21.03.2021, it would give rise to a complete new complexion which has not been appropriately considered by this Court and by dismissing the W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020, the valuable right of the review-petitioner has been severely prejudiced.

23. Considering the aforesaid submissions which though on the first blush may sound attractive but there are certain chinks in the said armour of submissions made by the learned counsel for the review-petitioner which are noticed as under:-

(a) It is not disputed that by means of order dated 30.07.2019, the order dated 09.11.2016 along with orders dated 06.01.2017 and 30.03.2017 were set aside by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 30th July, 2019. Thus, apparently, since then the order dated 09.11.2016 ceased to exist, but at the same time, the coordinate Bench in its order dated 30.07.2019 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo and had directed the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow to decide all issues including the issue of membership of Devendra Pal Verma as well as his authority to hold a post in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha.

(b) What is significant to note is that after the order passed by this Court on 30.07.2019 and while the matter was seized by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow who was conducting the hearings in light of the directions issued by this Court on 30.07.2019. It was also brought to his notice that the primary membership of Devendra Pal Verma had been terminated in meeting dated 24.07.2019 (prior to the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 30.07.2019). This is perhaps the reason that the coordinate Bench while issuing the directions in its order dated 30.07.2019 categorically provided that the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow would consider all issues regarding the membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma and the issue whether Devendra Pal Verma would have the authority to hold any post of President in the Society would depend on the final orders to be passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow. It is for the said reason that till the final decision of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo.

(c) The very fact that if a person looses his primary membership in a District Arya Samaj then he is not entitled to hold a post in the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha which is the apex body. Thus, once the primary membership of Devendra Pal Verma had been terminated on 24.07.2019, hence, he could not be permitted to hold the post of President and all these issues were yet to be decided by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, accordingly, the Court had safeguarded the rights of the respective parties by directing them to maintain status-quo.

(d) Admittedly, the order dated 30.07.2019 has not been set aside nor challenged rather it was acceeded to by the parties who participated in the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop, the issue before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow was two fold;

(i) the correctness of removal of Devendra Pal verma in pursuance of the order dated 09.11.2016 which had been set aside and its effect;

(ii) the removal of Devendra Pal Verma from the primary membership of Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar on 24.07.2019 and its effect.

(e) Taking a complete view of the matter including the various pleadings and contentions, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow by a detailed order dated 02.11.2019 rejected the representation of Sri Devendra Pal Verma. This was challenged in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020. This Court while considering W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 was required to adjudge the correctness of the order dated 02.11.2019 and 07.11.2019 in exercise of its power of judicial review. It may be reminded that this Court does not act as an Appellate Authority. Taking the consideration and looking into the facts which were brought before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow at the relevant point of time when the order was passed, this Court concluded that no error could be found in the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, therefore to that extent this Court does not find that there is any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the review-petitioners in so far as they have tried to link up the entire issue of membership with that of the order dated 09.11.2016.

(f) In so far as the issue raised regarding the restoration of the membership of Devendra Pal Verma is concerned, it would be found that the primary membership of Devendra Pal Verma was terminated on 24.07.2019, as noticed above, prior to the order dated 30.07.2019. The review-petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit dated 18.03.2021 in paragraphs 10 to 14 stated that the Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar has reversed the resolution dated 24.07.2019 and has restored the primary membership of the review-petitioner by means of resolution dated 19.07.2020 and this resolution has further been affirmed by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha on 26.09.2020. It will also be relevant to notice that these two orders regarding restoration of primary membership is post order dated 02.11.2019 and thus this could not have been taken as a ground to hold that the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow was bad. Nevertheless, the Court was cautious of this fact and already in paragraph 129, 130 and 131 of the judgment dated 07th June, 2021, it recorded its observations that if the membership of Devendra Pal Verma has been restored, the same will have its own consequences and since that was not the subject matter before the Court then, hence, it refrained from making any observations in respect thereto.

24. Thus, any apprehension as allayed by the review-petitioner on this count is also misfounded as it is well settled that an impugned order and in this case the order dated 02.11.2019 and 07.11.2019 were to be adjudged by this Court on the basis of material before it and the order impugned could not have been improved upon merely on the basis of some subsequent events. However, the fact remains that even if at all the membership has been restored, it still is open for the review-petitioner to participate in the proceedings and raise his objections on the strength of the same and the same would be considered but it cannot be said that the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow while passing the order dated 02.11.2019 had committed any error.

25. It is also another aspect to be noted that a membership of a person can be terminated for a limited time and once the membership is restored, he gains back his status from the date of restoration but that does not mean that the order dated 02.11.2019 was bad since the order by which the membership was terminated dated 24.07.2019 was actually never challenged seriously, by Sri Devendra Pal Verma, before any appropriate competent forum. Thus, taking care of the aforesaid situation, the Court had made the observations as noticed above and, therefore, to that extent, the submission of learned counsel for the review-petitioner does not find favour with the Court.

26. Lastly, what has been argued that the effect of elections which were held on 21.03.2021 has also not been appropriately considered by the Court for the reason that in the order it has been mentioned that no material was brought on record by the review-petitioner in its rejoinder affidavit dated 18.03.2021 whereas the elections were held only subsequent thereto on 21.03.2021. This also does not impress the Court for the reason that for any elections it is not the date of polling alone which is important since the review-petitioner had filed his rejoinder affidavit on 18.03.2021, he could have very well brought on record certain documents regarding the notification of elections and other ancillary documents indicating the various stages of an election leading up to the polling but that was not brought on record.

27. Even otherwise, it will be noticed that the hearing of the petitions continued on a number of dates and finally the matter was reserved as late as on 23.03.2021 and in case if the elections had been held on 21.03.2021, it was always open for the review-petitioner to have informed the Court apart from the fact that despite assistance sought from the learned Standing Counsel, he also did not inform the Court and this has also been recorded in the judgment dated 07.06.2021.

28. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the clear view that the judgment dated 07.06.2021 does not require a review and the entire endevour made by the review-petitioner is to get a re-hearing on merits which this Court is unable to persuade itself to permit and nevertheless it would also be against the settled legal principles relating to review as this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record.

29. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the humble opinion that the instant review-petition is sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 16th August, 2023

Asheesh